Throughout its tortured existence, the global warming theory’s promoters have consistently and on a regular basis sought to disprove this common sense observation. The climate cult never found any situation that does not prove their theory. The global warming theory is as malleable as Play-Doh.

Whenever a previously held “settled science” conclusion is falsified by actual physical events or observation, the cult simply morphs new revelations to fit the theory. This may mean modifying the theory to fit current circumstance, re-calibrating the theory down without re-calibrating the dire hyperbole, or simply embracing current circumstances as being “consistent with” the theory.

When North America descended into winter, weeks prior to its official start date which was just a continuation of the past few years of colder than “normal” conditions earlier than normal, the cult just modified the narrative to fit the inconvenient conditions.

This habit of selective adaptation of the theory is why it is always important to remember what the theory actually called for prior to the modification. In the case of recent colder temperatures earlier than normal we need only go back to the 2007 IPCC report which plainly defined what “global warming” was going to cause:

Global climate change is likely to be accompanied by an increase in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, as well as warmer summers and milder winters (see Table 3-10).

In the above mentioned table 3-10 the IPCC explained how sure they were of their forecast for warmer winters.

September 24, 2014

Perhaps the global warming theory’s greatest hypocrisy is using anti-capitalism to turn a profit.

AL Gore| PHOTO CREDIT Britbart News

There is no shortage of hypocrisy tied to the man-made global warming meme in fact the entire “movement” is perhaps the greatest example of hubris ever inflicted on humanity. It is not even necessary to dig into the details of the agenda to see this arrogant stupidity on display, the actors are more than willing to parade their false piety through the streets for the world to marvel at.

The current poster child for the “movement” is the actor Leonardo DiCaprio who appropriately enough is best known for flying the bow of the Titanic. This of course qualifies him to lead a sinking movement as the designated UN’s Messenger of Peace when he is not riding the waves to the World Cup in a yacht owned and paid for by a fossil fuel enriched UAE billionaire.

It is fitting that DiCaprio should live such an hypocritical lifestyle as he seeks to unseat the Godfather of all hypocrisy: the Tipperless Al Gore. Gore, who famously added to his activist-generated millions by selling his profitless TV network to a nation whose sole existence is derived from pumping “bubbly crude” from the sands of the Middle East, was also in attendance at the freak show “people’s” parade on Saturday – well at least until he exited stage far left in his giant gas guzzling SUV.

As the marchers disembarked this weekend from their thousands of chariots of exhaust spewing busses the entire affair was as disconnected from reality as the theory that reportedly spawned it, which in itself is a deception. The “scientific” theory did not create the movement, the movement created the scientific theory. Anti-capitalism not the plant fertilizer carbon dioxide is the precursor to the “man-made” global warming theory

September 22, 2014

Global warming alarmists are running out of sharks to jump and the world can’t help but notice

Daniel’s Woods|Photo Credit JD Brown

When a scientific theory is based upon false conclusions and incorrect assumptions inevitably all that flows from it will stray further and further from reality creating the need for even more outlandish propositions to sustain the initial assumption. History is full of false or ignorant scientific conclusions leading to disastrous results.

In December of 1799 a relatively healthy George Washington contracted what by today’s standards would be considered a minor case of pneumonia. He and his three attending physicians basically “bled” himself to the point that his weakened condition killed him. None of the learned men including the “Father” of our country believed that they were doing anything but adhering to the “consensus” best practice for treating his illness.

Bloodletting was based on an ancient system of medicine in which blood and other bodily fluid were regarded as “humors” that had to remain in proper balance to maintain health. It is claimed to have been the most common medical practice performed by surgeons from antiquity until the late 19th century, a span of almost 2,000 years

Today we look at practices such as “bleeding” as being akin to witchcraft.

Modern day learned men have reached the conclusion that the Earth’s systems also exist in a delicate balance which must be maintained lest we throw it into irreparable chaos. This is how it is possible for a scientific community to decide that a small amount of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will set the world ablaze with ever more dire consequences.

As their beliefs grows less sustainable due to reality trumping their theory they must grasp at ever more outlandish reasons for the failure of their beliefs. Perhaps the best example of this “grasping at straws” approach to science was recently expressed by Professor Ted Shepherd of Reading University:

The heat is still coming in, but it appears to have gone into the deep ocean and, frustratingly, we do not have the instruments to measure there. Global warming has certainly not gone away.

Global warming has not stopped, according to Shepherd, it has just gone to a place where conveniently it can not be measured. It is like asking the dealer for the new Ferrari based on money in the bank nobody has access to or can prove is there; and this is science?

The Czech physicist Luboš Motl has an excellent description of where the climate change cult finds itself as their theory crumbles around them.

The people believing in the climate hysteria have become so irrational about so many things that they’re ready to abandon certain beliefs even if they represent the foundations of what they have been previously saying about the essence of the world for many decades! When you think about it, what really matters isn’t whether they are left-wing or right-wing. What matters is that they are obsessed by this particular incoherent network of implausible assertions about the man-made carbon dioxide, the climate, and the hypothetical consequences of tiny changes of the temperature that may occur. The alarmists’ opinions don’t really have to agree with their scientific knowledge; they don’t have to agree with the most general philosophical framework that they used to hold dear. This harmony isn’t necessary because they have switched to the climate hysteria as the new #1 foundation of their belief system. The climate orthodoxy has become as important for them as the Islamic terrorists’ reading of the Quran is for these terrorists. Everything else is secondary.

The multitude of excuses for the pause in global warming which often times contradict the very foundation for the theory itself is proof of what Motl is saying, which is that climate change hysteria is now far more important than the scientific theory itself. I would argue that it always has been.

August 21, 2014

While the climate cult continues the drumbeat of doom, they still cannot explain why global warming has “paused”

Back in their glory days of 2007 the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released their fourth assessment report on global warming. Here is what they had to say about the short-term outlook on global temperatures:

For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. {10.3, 10.7} …

So the IPCC unequivocally claimed that their models, regardless of which CO2 scenario used, projected that temperatures would rise at a 0.2 C pace for the next two decades. To put that in perspective according to the IPCC the actual per decade increase in global temperatures for the period 1970-1998 was .17 C. This means that the IPCC was projecting an accelerating increase in global temperatures of .03 degrees for the next two decades beyond what it had been the previous two decades.

That was their projection. They even went so far as to maintain that there was already so much CO2 in the climate system that just maintaining it at 2000 levels would still result in a 0.1 C per decade increase. Which is telling yet irrelevant since they also knew that CO2 was not being maintained at 2000 levels. At the time of the IPCC’s 2007 report atmospheric CO2 levels had increased from 369.14 ppm in January of 2000 to 382.49 by January of 2007.

How do you square that official projection with this statement by Kevin Trenberth a lead author of that report who in 2009 wrote, “The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.” Trenberth was not talking about a one or two-year blip in the global warming narrative, he was talking about what was then over a decade long slowdown in global warming and which now has reached a 17 year “hiatus.”

It is obvious that the “scientists” who for decades were promoting the theory of man-made global warming knew that it wasn’t (warming) while they promoted the idea that it was. At least not anywhere near the “catastrophic” levels they want us to believe.

Between 1998 and 2012 global temperatures increased at a per decade rate of 0.04 C or one fifth of the IPCC projection (-.16 C) and decelerated from earlier warming by 0.13 C. So not only did the globe not warm as the IPCC predicted it would, it has not even kept pace with the previous warming, by a long shot.

In 2013 as it became increasingly obvious that global warming was not indeed happening and the scientific branch of the climate cult frantically began to make excuses for their failed projections and some in the cult were feeling, well misled.

David Shukman, Science editor at the BBC and a lifelong member of the cult who for years vociferously and without hesitation had promoted the idea that man’s emissions of carbon dioxide were a harm to the planet wrote the following (emphasis added):

On top of that, the scientists say, pauses in warming were always to be expected.

This is new – at least to me. It is common sense that climate change would not happen in a neat, linear way but instead in fits and starts.

But I’ve never heard leading researchers mention the possibility before.

But our jilted cultist went even further. Not only did he complain about this lack of “transparency” by his fellow members of the cult he actually hinted at the possibility that the foundation for their well crafted belief structure might be flawed.

But what about another possibility – that the calculations are wrong?

What if the climate models – which are the very basis for all discussions of what to do about global warming – exaggerate the sensitivity of the climate to rising carbon dioxide?

Leading up to the great admission that global warming had paue, nowhere in all the released studies or countless press releases had there been any mention of a “pause” or future pause in global warming. All the charts released showed a linear rise in temperatures corresponding to increased CO2 emissions....

August 15, 2014

Despite the fact that the globe has not warmed in over a decade the climate change “cause” marches on

United Nation’s Climate Change Conference | Photo Credit Flickr

One of the reasons I titled my column on climate change “Global warming and common sense” was that when you apply common sense to almost any story or proposition of the global warming narrative it begins to fall apart, it makes no sense.

All you have to do to see how out of whack the narrative is, is to understand the prostitution of what is referred to as the null hypothesis.

The null hypothesis (H0) is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.

The ‘null’ often refers to the common view of something, while the alternative hypothesis is what the researcher really thinks is the cause of a phenomenon.

From the beginning in the global warming narrative this common statistical and scientific practice was turned on its head. The”null” hypothesis when it comes to man-made global warming would be that the warming we were experiencing at the end of the twentieth century was natural. The scientists and activist who blamed the warming on fossil fuel use were proposing the “alternative” hypothesis.

But almost immediately the climate change cult was able to flip this and make their version of man-made the “null” and “natural” climate change the alternative. For proof of this it is no more difficult than reading the charter of the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which defines its role as:

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

This statement which created the IPCC, is from 1988. I am sure that many people have the misconception that the IPCC was established and operates to prove man-made global warming, but that is not the case. The IPCC began with the “null hypothesis” that there was man-made global warming and more importantly that it was a risk. In other words the IPCC was formed with express purpose to inform the world of the dangers of man-made global warming, that is their role.

In addition; all of the IPCC’s multi-national bureaucratic framework is tied into the United Nation, with all its multifaceted agendas and interests. With all of this techno-bureaucratic self-interested coagulation, nature did not have a chance. But nature does not exist or conform to the dictates of multinational organizations despite what lengths they may go to distort nature’s reality.

Consider this statement from the “godfather” of global warming, James Hansen back in 2012

The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing.

That “flat” rate of temperature increase has not changed and in fact most scientists agree that it has been going on much longer. Last year the Economist a publication that previously had taken the alarmist view of global warming admitted, well, the obvious.

Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar.

Despite all the “explanations” for this, and there are many, the fact is that the global warming predicted by the climate change cult has not happened. Which leads to this very simple yet vitally important question; If temperatures have remained flat over the past fifteen years or more, what about all the stories over the past decade and a half about the negative effects of global warming on well….everything?

Today (8/15/2014) at least fifteen years after scientists admit temperatures stopped rising, I read at CNBC -“Is climate change key to the spread of Ebola?” Now common sense would answer obviously not since global warming stopped or to use the cult’s terminology “paused” when Bill Clinton was president but here we are told.

Some scientists believe global warming—and the subsequent increase in extreme weather—could be a factor behind in the virus’s ascendance.

Who are these scientists? Don’t they read the Economist?

If there has been no global warming than all the dire events blamed on it are either total fabrications or the result of some other cause, like nature. Consider this from the once prestigious National Geographic titled; “Effects of Global Warming Signs Are Everywhere.”

Well when you attribute everything to something that is not actually happening, then I guess you can find signs everywhere, can’t you? They go on an alarmist tangent about all that is happening to our world while temperatures have been “flat” for over a decade.

The planet is warming, from North Pole to South Pole, and everywhere in between. Globally, the mercury is already up more than 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius), and even more in sensitive polar regions. And the effects of rising temperatures aren’t waiting for some far-flung future. They’re happening right now. Signs are appearing all over, and some of them are surprising. The heat is not only melting glaciers and sea ice, it’s also shifting precipitation patterns and setting animals on the move.

They tell us that some of these things are happening now, among the examples I found interesting was this:

Spruce bark beetles have boomed in Alaska thanks to 20 years of warm summers. The insects have chewed up 4 million acres of spruce trees.

Spruce bark beetles may have boomed in Alaska, but it has nothing to do with global warming, Alaska has cooled over the past 15 years. But you wouldn’t expect the National Geographic to have their facts correct now would you? Not when the narrative is so much more dramatic.

How many stories have you read in the past decade about something being caused by global warming? Hundreds? Thousands? You know all those increased diseases, those endangered species, those droughts, the excessive flooding, the heavier snowfall, more tornadoes , hurricanes. All those thousands upon thousands of article written about what global warming was causing, not in the future but now, those articles are to put it mildly…. bogus.

As bogus as the theory itself.

Now you see the corner the narrative has now been painted into. If the scientific community has to finally admit that temperatures, despite their best efforts to fudge them, have remained flat, then everything they have attributed to “climate change” can not be true.

But unfortunately “climate change” has become the null hypothesis. In fact the very terms “climate change” or “global warming” have taken on new meanings. One automatically assumes that when these terms are used they mean man-made. The fact that there has been no global warming for seventeen years is irrelevant, climate change meaning man-made is the accepted reality. Society is living within a lie which everyone, even its benefactors, admits is a lie yet we go on as if it is the truth.

Josef Goebbels the NAZI propagandist nailed it when he observed

“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”

It would seem that with repetition and psychological understanding, the climate cult has been able to manipulate society into believing cold is hot; where bitter winters are the result of global warming and all climatic conditions are the result of man’s burning of fossil fuels. Whatever the change, your modern lifestyle is responsible for it, feel guilt and follow us-sucker.

So ingrained into our educational and popular belief structure is the idea that we are endangering ourselves and the planet through the use of fossil fuels that the human race is willing to ignore reality to expunge ourselves from a false sense of guilt foisted on us by fools pretending to be wise.

Climate projections suggest that, thanks to human activity, we will likely see an increase in extreme weather events, disruptions to agriculture, loss of livelihoods and displacement of people.

Do you believe?

Ignore the pause join our cause!

Read more at http://www.brennerbrief.com/climate-change-null-hypothesis/#44B8RMyqOy5CaX6I.99

Despite declarations of certainty, the science of “climate change” is a great unknown.

There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know.

Science pretty much operates in the “known unknown” realm. Occasionally but very rarely unknown unknowns reveal themselves out of the blue but for the most part science is an investigation of the known unknown of the physical universe. When it comes to climate science and the “theory” of man-made global warming, the largest known unknown of all is clouds and the part they play in the Earth’s climate, specifically the effect they have on this modern-day menagerie called climate change.

In the previous article of this series we discussed the possibility of a new explanation for the “modern warming period” which suggests that more intense solar winds during periods of heightened solar activity block the natural and normal flow of cosmic rays bombarding the Earth’s atmosphere. It is proposed that these cosmic rays are responsible for the formation of or increased formation of clouds.

The evidence has piled up, first for the link between cosmic rays and low-level clouds and then, by experiment and observation, for the mechanism involving aerosols. All these consistent scientific results illustrate that the current climate models used to predict future climate are lacking important parts of the physics.

Is this important? According to the UN’s IPCC, the supposed scientific gold standard on all things having to do with man-made global warming, it is the most important known unknown of all. The IPCC admits that they do not have an understanding of clouds and more importantly, clouds are not being adequately modeled in their simulations – which are used as the basis for their alarmism.

From the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (FAR).

It is believed that the overall effect of the feedback amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.

Putting aside that “belief” is not proof, this “uncertainty” and “limited knowledge” of clouds is a very big deal. Putting aside the new research with cosmic rays, that the climate cult does not actually understand a critical component of the theory which they claim is conclusive is nothing short of fraud. Because if they do not understand clouds then they cannot really forecast the climate.

The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.

As with much of the climate change cult’s theory on global warming the obvious must be ignored in order that the elaborate house of cards of convoluted hypothesis and assumptions can be portrayed as being conclusive. But even the climate science community knows that they cannot ignore their own ignorance when it comes to clouds.

The modeling of cloud processes and feedbacks provides a striking example of the irregular pace of progress in climate science. Representation of clouds may constitute the area in which atmospheric models have been modified most continuously to take into account increasingly complex physical processes. At the time of the TAR clouds remained a major source of uncertainty in the simulation of climate changes as they still are at present.

As Klaus-Eckard Puls, Vice President of the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), has observed:

Only a few people in the climate discussion are aware that CO2 is not the main driver, and that most of the warming is assigned to the dubious amplification mechanism. CO2 by itself only has a warming potential of 1.1°C per atmospheric concentration doubling. It is only through the theoretical assumption of the up-to-now poorly understood amplification mechanism that the warming gets catapulted by the IPCC to 2.0-4.5°C per CO2 doubling, mainly through water vapour and clouds.

All the studies that are conducted, the warnings given, the policies enacted the entire edifice of climate changeology from windmills to ethanol, from polar bears to melting glaciers are dependent on that foundation being true. If not then everything is built on sand. If the unproven “amplification” component of the enhanced greenhouse effect theory is not valid, everything that has happened as the result of the theory is based on false science as is being shown by the 17 year pause in the projected warming......